One hopes that the police statement is wrong due to the mangled English and poverty of expression that afflicts many British police officers. But sadly, I don't think it is. The country of Milton, Locke, and Mill has (depending on your local police force) thought crimes.

Note also the category of "hate incident". This would appear to have no purpose than to frighten the public, and produce bogus statistics about the number of racists, sexists, ageists, homophobes, transphobes, and any-old-phobes who are lurking among us and need rooting out.

Each generation that grows up thinking this is normal increases the ratchet effect and makes it harder to resist this drift towards dystopia.

In order to establish guilt in a criminal proceeding, means, motive, and opportunity must be evidenced.
Given this, it makes sense to propose that any of these three per se can be problematic, especially motive.

In order to establish guilt in a criminal proceeding, means, motive, and opportunity must be evidenced.
Given this, it makes sense to propose that any of these three per se can be problematic, especially motive.

Despite these being useful guides in establishing guilt, there is nothing in English law which codifies this. Guilt is determined when a court establishes that the criteria for a crime being committed have been met. The problem with the issue of thought crime in the UK is that one can theoretically receive the attentions of the police without actually having done anything more than revealing ones attitudes or desires. There have been laws relating to conspiracy for a long time, but recent developments mean that the police are now targetting individuals on the basis of what others think they meant. This is a retrograde step.

Besides, Buddhism readily acknowledges thought crimes.

I'm not sure what counts as "Buddhism", but I haven't seen the concept of "thought crime" expressed in the Pali canon. My guess is that any Buddhist who thinks the Buddha used such a concept is confused about meaning.

The problem with the issue of thought crime in the UK is that one can theoretically receive the attentions of the police without actually having done anything more than revealing ones attitudes or desires. There have been laws relating to conspiracy for a long time, but recent developments mean that the police are now targetting individuals on the basis of what others think they meant. This is a retrograde step.

Yet this approach seems rather normal in psychiatry and its applications. For example, every day, kids get stigmatized as sociopaths solely on the words of others.

Besides, Buddhism readily acknowledges thought crimes.

I'm not sure what counts as "Buddhism", but I haven't seen the concept of "thought crime" expressed in the Pali canon. My guess is that any Buddhist who thinks the Buddha used such a concept is confused about meaning.

I'm refering to mental actions being as much subject to one's own scrutiny as one's verbal and physical actions. One can, for example, transgress the precepts only mentally, but those are still transgressions.

Yet this approach seems rather normal in psychiatry and its applications. For example, every day, kids get stigmatized as sociopaths solely on the words of others.

Absolutely. It's to avoid this kind of nonsense that we need to be vigilant regarding the law and the actions of the police.

I'm refering to mental actions being as much subject to one's own scrutiny as one's verbal and physical actions. One can, for example, transgress the precepts only mentally, but those are still transgressions.

Is is recommended that we scrutinise mental acts, and some are certainly labelled as unskilful or unwholesome, but that's very different from them being thought crimes. They are subject to the objective laws of kamma rather than the prescriptive laws of a country or organisation.

I've not seen reference to mental transgression of the precepts in the canon. Sometimes the ten forms of wholesome conduct coincide with keeping particular precepts, but I don't think the 5 lay person's precepts are transgressed unless there is the particular action (i.e. the killing, the stealing, the proscribed sexual activity, the lying, and the consumption) committed. One can, for example, really want to drink alcohol, but providing one doesn't give in to the urge, the precept is not broken.

Is is recommended that we scrutinise mental acts, and some are certainly labelled as unskilful or unwholesome, but that's very different from them being thought crimes. They are subject to the objective laws of kamma rather than the prescriptive laws of a country or organisation.

Here's what I don't understand:
Where does one draw the line?
Why couldn't the prescriptive laws of a country or organisation be the same as kammic laws?

I've not seen reference to mental transgression of the precepts in the canon. Sometimes the ten forms of wholesome conduct coincide with keeping particular precepts, but I don't think the 5 lay person's precepts are transgressed unless there is the particular action (i.e. the killing, the stealing, the proscribed sexual activity, the lying, and the consumption) committed. One can, for example, really want to drink alcohol, but providing one doesn't give in to the urge, the precept is not broken.

For one, one can easily go against the spirit of the precept in one's mind.

For two, take the basic instructions to Rahula:

"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.
/.../https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .than.html

For one, one can easily go against the spirit of the precept in one's mind.

What does this "going against the spirit" actually entail? Imagining doing it? Wanting to do it? As I said above, these are not, so far as I know, actual breaches of the precept. They might be unwholesome, but they only transgress recommendations given elsewhere than in the precepts.

I think this is clearly about the first precept.

It might be. It might be about any of them. But note that the Buddha does not tell Rahula that it is preceptual. ("If you do this, Rahula, you will have broken a precept...") Just that it should not be done. There are many things other than keeping the precepts which the Buddha said ought to be done.

Since this thread has become so "extensive" and "prolific" I decided to revisit the OP:

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:35 pm

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the prevalence of trends, actions, ideologies and policies which are a threat to free speech in the 21st century.

I can think of several off the top of my head:

Russia: If you openly / publicly disagree with the leader of govt. you might wind up being poisoned.

North Korea: If you openly / publicly disagree with the leader of govt. you might wind up being poisoned.

U.S.: If you publicly disagree with the liberals you will be subject to demonstrations, your property damaged, be attacked by actors, politicians, and union thugs paid for by Soros.

U.S.: If you Tweet stupid or rude things and you are President of U.S. you will be attacked by the liberal News media and incessantly derided and ridiculed on CNN, MSNBC and every liberal comedian on t.v.

U.S.: If you say stupid, rude, or sarcastic things about President Trump (true or not) you will be ridiculed by Greg Gutfeld and Hannity on FOX.

U.S.: If you are a conservative and wish to speak at a liberal college you will not be allowed by liberal protesters.

U.S.: If you disagree openly with your wife you will be wrong before you even open your mouth. Hence the question: "If a husband makes a statement of any kind in the forest, and your wife doesn't hear you, are you still wrong?"

What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Because kamma-vipaka is not knowable, so legislators could not frame laws and penalties with any accuracy.

What's the use of a concept, when its applications cannot be known?

For one, one can easily go against the spirit of the precept in one's mind.

What does this "going against the spirit" actually entail? Imagining doing it? Wanting to do it? As I said above, these are not, so far as I know, actual breaches of the precept. They might be unwholesome, but they only transgress recommendations given elsewhere than in the precepts.

Yes. But beyond that, I think it depends on how serious one is about the practice. For example, if one notices that pizza has an intoxicating effect on one's mind, then, even though pizza is not officially listed as an intoxicant, in order to act in line with the spirit of the precept against consuming intoxicants, one refrains from eating pizza. Or, to give an example of going against the spirit of the precept in one's mind: indulging in romantic fantasies about someone.

Yet this approach seems rather normal in psychiatry and its applications. For example, every day, kids get stigmatized as sociopaths solely on the words of others.

Absolutely. It's to avoid this kind of nonsense that we need to be vigilant regarding the law and the actions of the police.

Humans in general have engaged in witch hunts and scapegoating for millennia, in one way or another. Is there any reason to think they could stop doing so? Even if they wanted to stop behaving that way, it's questionable whether their psyches could handle the radically different social environment that would emerge in the absence of such behaviors; and whether they could live with their own faults and imprefections without blaming others and without taking their frustrations with themselves out on others.

I'm refering to mental actions being as much subject to one's own scrutiny as one's verbal and physical actions. One can, for example, transgress the precepts only mentally, but those are still transgressions.

Is is recommended that we scrutinise mental acts, and some are certainly labelled as unskilful or unwholesome, but that's very different from them being thought crimes. They are subject to the objective laws of kamma rather than the prescriptive laws of a country or organisation.

My point is that thought crimes aren't necessarily an exception to other crimes. Think about the things that Catholics can or should confess, in formal confession: many of those are thought crimes; ie. they have the gravity of crimes because the mere (!) mental transgression is considered grave enough. Another example, religious heresy is, to a great extent, entirely mental, yet regarded in religious circles as a serious transgression (which in some periods of history warranted the death penalty, and in some places, it still does).

It seems rather to be expected that secular society would have similar concepts, even if somewhat toned down. It seems that the principle of social cohesion demands that people not only peacefully coexist in their verbal and bodily actions, but also in their mental actions. Because otherwise, that peaceful coexistence in words and deeds would be rendered a mere pretense, as there would be no meeting of minds. Which has wide-ranging implications.

Because kamma-vipaka is not knowable, so legislators could not frame laws and penalties with any accuracy.

What's the use of a concept, when its applications cannot be known?

Often, we don't need to know the particular applications. It's like knowing about the dangers of falling and not needing to know about where exactly one will hit the ground; or knowing that poisons will make us ill, without needing to know the symptoms of those illnesses.

Yes. But beyond that, I think it depends on how serious one is about the practice. For example, if one notices that pizza has an intoxicating effect on one's mind, then, even though pizza is not officially listed as an intoxicant, in order to act in line with the spirit of the precept against consuming intoxicants, one refrains from eating pizza. Or, to give an example of going against the spirit of the precept in one's mind: indulging in romantic fantasies about someone.

True. This is to do with types of right conduct which are beyond the precepts. In the case of pizza, or indeed other foods, I am wary about extending the fifth precept to cover them, regardless of the effects they have on one. I would conceptualise this in terms of craving and greed; or just avoiding foods that don't agree with one.

Humans in general have engaged in witch hunts and scapegoating for millennia, in one way or another. Is there any reason to think they could stop doing so? Even if they wanted to stop behaving that way, it's questionable whether their psyches could handle the radically different social environment that would emerge in the absence of such behaviors; and whether they could live with their own faults and imprefections without blaming others and without taking their frustrations with themselves out on others.

I'm not talking about eradicating the general tendency to scapegoat and control others; you're probably right to say these things are inexpungeable. The best we can hope for is to stand up to this tendency whenever it threatens us, and preventing deterioration in the law would be an example of this.

My point is that thought crimes aren't necessarily an exception to other crimes. Think about the things that Catholics can or should confess, in formal confession: many of those are thought crimes; ie. they have the gravity of crimes because the mere (!) mental transgression is considered grave enough. Another example, religious heresy is, to a great extent, entirely mental, yet regarded in religious circles as a serious transgression (which in some periods of history warranted the death penalty, and in some places, it still does).

Other people's thoughts have certainly been seen as important, and this is (in one sense at least) even more important within Buddhism than in Catholicism. Intention determines action, so is of extreme significance. But there are two important differences here. Buddhism does not express unskilful actions as "crimes". This might be because there is no developed Buddhist jurisprudence, but the differences are clear. Unskilful actions are not determined as such by human convention; and they often do not have humanly-imposed penalties attached. Vipaka is not "punishment" in the conventional sense.

The second difference should be seen in the context of the English legal system which I was talking about. There has long been a convention that people cannot be tried for their opinions and ideas. In matters of religion, Elizabeth 1 said "I would not open windows into men's souls", and there has been a jealously-guarded tradition of independence of religious thought which was very well established by the middle of last century. Liberty of thought has been so strongly guarded and praised by English liberals (in the Millian meaning of the term) that to talk of policing intentions is hugely retrograde.

It seems rather to be expected that secular society would have similar concepts, even if somewhat toned down. It seems that the principle of social cohesion demands that people not only peacefully coexist in their verbal and bodily actions, but also in their mental actions. Because otherwise, that peaceful coexistence in words and deeds would be rendered a mere pretense, as there would be no meeting of minds. Which has wide-ranging implications.

Sure. Similar, but not "crimes". Norms and customs and freely-chosen modes of interacting with others do very well here. And there is also the point (again derived from the English liberal tradition) that radical and unorthodox ideas should be actively encouraged and freed from both state and religious supervision in order to enhance human progress and flourishing. Minds can meet in passion and disagreement, with no threat to society at all. As William Blake said, "Opposition is true friendship...One law for the lion and the ox is oppression". That's probably a key difference between European Catholicism and the glory that is English liberal protestantism.